Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: 2916 Lake Placid incredible generousity.... [japarker24] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
It could probably use some tweaking. But at the same time, I would think that the rules are written with ambiguity for the discretion of the officials to decide if advantages are gained. Granted, there are some officials that take their roles a bit more seriously than others, but what you will get if you tweak the rules too much are strict officials across the board. I do not think any one would enjoy that.

Sport is supposed to be fun, and not a giant box of rules.
Quote Reply
Re: 2016 Lake Placid incredible generousity.... [johnp12] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I saw a bunch of replies to this post, and got excited that perhaps the sunglasses were reunited with the owner, and it had a fun conclusion.

Nope, just people arguing over dumb rules. Slowtwitch never fails to deliver.
Quote Reply
Re: 2016 Lake Placid incredible generousity.... [jeremyscarroll] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
jeremyscarroll wrote:


Nope, just people arguing over dumb rules. Slowtwitch never fails to deliver.


It's still fun!!!

ETA: You think 27 = "a bunch"?

Pink? Maybe. Maybe not. You decide.
Last edited by: japarker24: Jul 26, 16 13:46
Quote Reply
Re: 2916 Lake Placid incredible generousity.... [Kay Serrar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Kay Serrar wrote:
Exactly. No breach of Ironman rules, but could be construed as a breach of USAT rules. In my experience USAT officials tend to be more anal about these things, so it wouldn't surprise me to see someone get a penalty (though unlikely a DQ) for taking equipment from a spectator. For instance, at a small local race I know an instance of an athlete getting a 2 min penalty for throwing his bike gloves to a spectator near the start of the run (forgot to remove them in T2).

Actually, it violates the letter of WTC rules too:

2.01 (i) Compete without receiving assistance from other parties (other than from Race Referees, Race Officials, and other athletes in accordance with Section 2.02;

I asked an official at an Ironman 70.3 race after the athlete meeting if it would be counted as outside assistance if I handed off my empty Nathan running bottle to my wife when I passed her on the course and he said that it would - the only thing I was legally allowed to do with it was carry it or throw it in the trash at an aid station.

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook
Quote Reply
Re: 2916 Lake Placid incredible generousity.... [japarker24] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
japarker24 wrote:
champy wrote:
I feel you are a bit off in your interpretation of this situation and the rule. The likely outcome is praise and applause. A DQ from Ironman would create a lot of backlash for them.


I understand the situation. It's an awesome situation, but the fact is.....the athlete broke a USAT rule. And I don't necessarily agree that it should be a rule violation. But, I think it is a slippery slope if you start to ignore rules because of a "feel good" story.

Anyway, I'm only bringing this up to generate discussion. And this is not the first time this exact rule has brought about lots of discussion. I feel that many people would agree that the rule needs (at least) a little tweaking.

ETA: Also, I'm just trying to boost my post count (I think I may change my signature to reflect this).


you are correct both on the rule and it needing to be tweaked.

As for your post count, maybe you could come up with some catchy phrase that could be posted over and over each time a related topic comes up. something along the lines of "let's make America great again" for all the political threads. that will increase your post count immensely. ;)
Last edited by: ChrisT: Jul 26, 16 14:56
Quote Reply
Re: 2916 Lake Placid incredible generousity.... [RowToTri] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
RowToTri wrote:
Kay Serrar wrote:
Exactly. No breach of Ironman rules, but could be construed as a breach of USAT rules. In my experience USAT officials tend to be more anal about these things, so it wouldn't surprise me to see someone get a penalty (though unlikely a DQ) for taking equipment from a spectator. For instance, at a small local race I know an instance of an athlete getting a 2 min penalty for throwing his bike gloves to a spectator near the start of the run (forgot to remove them in T2).

Actually, it violates the letter of WTC rules too:

2.01 (i) Compete without receiving assistance from other parties (other than from Race Referees, Race Officials, and other athletes in accordance with Section 2.02;

I asked an official at an Ironman 70.3 race after the athlete meeting if it would be counted as outside assistance if I handed off my empty Nathan running bottle to my wife when I passed her on the course and he said that it would - the only thing I was legally allowed to do with it was carry it or throw it in the trash at an aid station.

No, those are different situations. Your wife wasn't competing and you were abandoning equipment in your scenario. This person was competing and gave him something to use that didn't sacrifice his own race. It was fine to do.

_____________________________________________________
Instagram | Team Kiwami North America
Quote Reply
Re: 2916 Lake Placid incredible generousity.... [Sbradley11] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Sbradley11 wrote:
RowToTri wrote:
Kay Serrar wrote:
Exactly. No breach of Ironman rules, but could be construed as a breach of USAT rules. In my experience USAT officials tend to be more anal about these things, so it wouldn't surprise me to see someone get a penalty (though unlikely a DQ) for taking equipment from a spectator. For instance, at a small local race I know an instance of an athlete getting a 2 min penalty for throwing his bike gloves to a spectator near the start of the run (forgot to remove them in T2).


Actually, it violates the letter of WTC rules too:

2.01 (i) Compete without receiving assistance from other parties (other than from Race Referees, Race Officials, and other athletes in accordance with Section 2.02;

I asked an official at an Ironman 70.3 race after the athlete meeting if it would be counted as outside assistance if I handed off my empty Nathan running bottle to my wife when I passed her on the course and he said that it would - the only thing I was legally allowed to do with it was carry it or throw it in the trash at an aid station.


No, those are different situations. Your wife wasn't competing and you were abandoning equipment in your scenario. This person was competing and gave him something to use that didn't sacrifice his own race. It was fine to do.

I think you misunderstand the situation - a spectator gave him the glasses.

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook
Quote Reply
Re: 2916 Lake Placid incredible generousity.... [RowToTri] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
RowToTri wrote:
Sbradley11 wrote:
RowToTri wrote:
Kay Serrar wrote:
Exactly. No breach of Ironman rules, but could be construed as a breach of USAT rules. In my experience USAT officials tend to be more anal about these things, so it wouldn't surprise me to see someone get a penalty (though unlikely a DQ) for taking equipment from a spectator. For instance, at a small local race I know an instance of an athlete getting a 2 min penalty for throwing his bike gloves to a spectator near the start of the run (forgot to remove them in T2).


Actually, it violates the letter of WTC rules too:

2.01 (i) Compete without receiving assistance from other parties (other than from Race Referees, Race Officials, and other athletes in accordance with Section 2.02;

I asked an official at an Ironman 70.3 race after the athlete meeting if it would be counted as outside assistance if I handed off my empty Nathan running bottle to my wife when I passed her on the course and he said that it would - the only thing I was legally allowed to do with it was carry it or throw it in the trash at an aid station.


No, those are different situations. Your wife wasn't competing and you were abandoning equipment in your scenario. This person was competing and gave him something to use that didn't sacrifice his own race. It was fine to do.

I think you misunderstand the situation - a spectator gave him the glasses.

Ah, yes I did misunderstand. Then I suppose technically it was a no no.

_____________________________________________________
Instagram | Team Kiwami North America
Quote Reply
Re: 2916 Lake Placid incredible generousity.... [Sbradley11] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The outside assistance rule should have some room for interpretation or at least be reserved for exceptional cases. I don't know how you would word that. Consider in Whistler this weekend, there was at least one person at the start (maybe 2?) that needed a freaking *wetsuit*. And there were actually people who gave up extras. Since it was before the gun went off, it's not outside assistance. But clearly more helpful than a set of sunglasses.
Quote Reply
Re: 2916 Lake Placid incredible generousity.... [spudone] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I completely agree. It never ceases to amaze me what people forget to bring to races. And it baffles me even more that people have those items to lend. It's a great community of people who are incredibly generous, but double check your bag in the morning, right?

_____________________________________________________
Instagram | Team Kiwami North America
Quote Reply
Re: 2916 Lake Placid incredible generousity.... [ChrisT] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ChrisT wrote:
japarker24 wrote:
champy wrote:
I feel you are a bit off in your interpretation of this situation and the rule. The likely outcome is praise and applause. A DQ from Ironman would create a lot of backlash for them.


I understand the situation. It's an awesome situation, but the fact is.....the athlete broke a USAT rule. And I don't necessarily agree that it should be a rule violation. But, I think it is a slippery slope if you start to ignore rules because of a "feel good" story.

Anyway, I'm only bringing this up to generate discussion. And this is not the first time this exact rule has brought about lots of discussion. I feel that many people would agree that the rule needs (at least) a little tweaking.

ETA: Also, I'm just trying to boost my post count (I think I may change my signature to reflect this).


you are correct both on the rule and it needing to be tweaked.

As for your post count, maybe you could come up with some catchy phrase that could be posted over and over each time a related topic comes up. something along the lines of "let's make America great again" for all the political threads. that will increase your post count immensely. ;)

That's a great idea!! I'll give it a try!

Pink? Maybe. Maybe not. You decide.
Quote Reply
Re: 2916 Lake Placid incredible generousity.... [japarker24] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Holy crap......

For the record, the glasses actually belonged to the spectator's wife.....who was competing. He had her permission to issue them to fellow competitors..........at will.

I read a race report from a lady who was doing an IM......and had her goggles kicked off her face during the first lap of a 2 lap swim. When she exited the water, she asked loudly if anyone had any goggles. A man stepped up and handed her a pair his wife had given to him before she entered the water (obviously a spare pair). In this instance, the man was simply a middle man.

Not squinting is apparently worth a few watts........SMH.
Quote Reply
Re: 2916 Lake Placid incredible generousity.... [nc452010] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Mike R actually asked the crowd if anyone had a spare pair as a competitor lost/broke hers during the first loop. People obliged. Technically she should have been penalized.
Quote Reply
Re: 2916 Lake Placid incredible generousity.... [champy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Have you ever ridden 112 miles on a bike without eye protection? It makes a big difference.
Quote Reply
Re: 2916 Lake Placid incredible generousity.... [arby] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Have you ever ridden 112 miles on a bike without eye protection? It makes a big difference.

I'm aware, move along. It's not the point I was trying to make. I'd rather not continue to detract from the point of the thread.
Quote Reply
Re: 2916 Lake Placid incredible generousity.... [champy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Oh so you haven't. Point taken.
Quote Reply
Re: 2916 Lake Placid incredible generousity.... [arby] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I said "I'm aware"... meaning I understand it makes a difference.
Quote Reply
Re: 2916 Lake Placid incredible generousity.... [Ironfan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
That is because the RD asked Reilly to make that announcement. All ended up to the good. Settle down y'all.

Ironfan wrote:
Mike R actually asked the crowd if anyone had a spare pair as a competitor lost/broke hers during the first loop. People obliged. Technically she should have been penalized.
Quote Reply

Prev Next